Letter: Non-market, revolutionary socialism (1987)

Letter to the editors from the Winter 1987-88 issue of the World Socialist 

Non-market, revolutionary socialism

As a frequent reader during the past twenty years of the Socialist Standard and the Western Socialist when it was being published, I welcome the World Socialist as an international publication for non-market, revolutionary socialists and a much needed weapon in the struggle of the international working class against the international ruling class. I especially want to commend you for the quality of the articles and the attractive format.

The single feature that I feel may limit its effectiveness is the last paragraph in your "Declaration of Principles": "That as political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interest of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party."

If by "party seeking working class emancipation" you mean only those national parties listed on the inside front cover, then the "principle" seems not only untrue but also rather jingoistic — a sort of narrow party patriotism. For certainly you must know that there are other groups that hold a vision of the future society that differs only superficially from yours.

During most of the time I was reading your publications I was a member of the American Socialist Labor Party. Certainly I didn't feel hostile to the WSP and the SPGB, nor is the SLP the expression of class interests hostile to the emancipation of the working class. And the same can be said for many other parties and groups, which you — and I for that matter — may feel have most deplorable errors in their views on the value of participating in elections or the way society will be organized but who stand with us in their vision of a classless, stateless, moneyless future society.

All this is not meant as a plea for unity among such groups and parties. I think our differences are far too great for us to live together comfortably in the same organizational household. We come from very disparate traditions of socialist thought — syndicalist, council communist, anarchist, revolutionary industrial unionist. But what we can do is find out something about the programs and positions of other "third force" socialist, as they might be called. Perhaps we will learn something. And more important, we will save our hostility for those who deserve it: the Leninist and social democratic perverters of socialism who, given the chance, would lead our class into a new slavery.

Readers who are interested in a forum for "third force" socialists that currently features an ongoing debate/discussion involving supporters of World Socialist can obtain a free sample copy of the Discussion Bulletin along with subscription information from P.O. Box 15 64, Grand Rapids, MI 49501, USA.

Yours for World Socialism, 

Frank Girard

 

 

Reply

We appreciate Frank Girard's support for The World Socialist and endorse his aim of making possible debate and discussion between those who stand for a classless, stateless, moneyless society.

When the Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed in 1904 it accepted as members only those who adhered to revolutionary socialist principles. To have entertained in its ranks other workers, perhaps agreeing with some of our principles but not others, would have had the effect of possibly swelling our ranks, but certainly eliminating the unity which has allowed us to survive as a movement. All of the parties of the World Socialist Movement accept a common set of principles, all are dedicated solely to the achievement of the clearly-defined socialist objective and therefore all members within the ranks of our movement are equals, bound together by class consciousness as well as class interest As early as 1904 the Socialist Party of Great Britain recognised that there were other workers outside its ranks who shared its vision of socialism; you have only to look over the early issues of the Socialist Standard to observe that we made no claim, as a numerically very small party existing in one country, to monopolise socialist knowledge. In retrospect we can see that the early years of the century did witness the emergence of a number of working-class groups and tendencies — some of which are listed by Girard — which shared an outlook very close to our own. That is not to say that there were not sharp differences of principle concerning certain important points: for example, the syndicalist and anarchist rejection of the crucial necessity for democratic political action by a class-conscious working class or the fallacious acceptance by the industrial unionists of the SLP of socialism in one country or the scheme to allocate consumer goods using labour vouchers, thus negating the concept of a society without exchange or money. These principled differences separated workers into different organisations, although it was often the case that the differences were mainly over how to achieve socialism or details concerning the working of the new system. In short, in the early years there was a good deal of consensus within a body of workers broader than the parties adhering to the Declaration of Principles as to what socialism meant; means rather than the end divided us.

In 1914 the reformist (or social-democratic) parties were shown in their full anti-socialist colours as they lined up to support their masters in the butchery of imperialist war. 1914 proved to the small socialist movement which then existed the immense value of sticking to our principles. Of course, we were not alone in the world in opposing the war, but we were virtually so and it was quite clear that our differences with the so-called socialists who had claimed to be going our way in previous years were of fundamental significance. Then in 1917 the Bolshevik coup in Russia won converts to the illusory, state-capitalist ideology of Leninism: once again it became clear that our difference with the Leninists was not about means, but about the very objective of socialism. History vindicated our position of principled hostility, not only to the ideas of the open defenders of capitalism, (to the ideas, it must be emphasised, not to particular workers holding then) but to those of the phoney socialists who were nothing of the sort.

Frank Girard quite clearly agrees with us that socialists must be unequivocally opposed to the bogus socialists of the reformist and Leninist left-wing of capitalism. What he is suggesting is that a position now exists where there are workers outside of the world socialist movement who share our vision of socialism and should not be alienated from us by the expression of our hostility towards them. We accept that such people do exist — possibly far more than our limited knowledge of the development of ideas globally allows us to perceive. Quite obviously, the more workers there are worldwide who seek the establishment of socialism the better that is, for not until there is a majority of socialists will there be a socialist society. If such people who are outside the parties of the World Socialist Movement wish to disagree with us about the precise means of bringing socialism into being it is in our interest to discuss with them in an open-minded fashion, and there can be no question that, as we are not a sectarian movement, if others can come up with a better means of achieving socialism than we know about we are willing to learn from them.

Editorial Committee